Talk:51st state/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 51st state. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

"but Sicilians do not share every single cultural trait with those in other regions and provinces of the Italian peninsula." No regions in Italy shares "every single cultural trait" with the others... i think this phrase should be deleted-

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.249.148 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2008‎ (UTC)

While I would love to sit here and debate when the 51st state will come into existence, I'd like to instead point out that the caption under the image of the 51 star flag is misleading. A flag has not "been created" just in case. The design of the flag is decided by the President through executive order, and hence no committee of people sitting hundreds of feet beneath the surface in a concrete room with a red phone with lines direct to Northern Kentucky or Puerto Rico actually exists on the off chance that another state will join the union. Mercer5089 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The President doesn't do such a thing without advice, though. According to a caption in District of Columbia statehood movement, the 9+8+9+8+9+8 design came from the United States Army Institute of Heraldry. —Tamfang (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

>>There has been a recent movement for Northern Kentucky and Jefferson County, Kentucky (Louisville) to secede from Kentucky to form the State of Northern Kentucky. << Oh, please. I don't know who put THAT on there, but it's gone unnoticed by newspapers like the Courier-Journal, the Kentucky Enquirer and the Herald-Leader. Sounds like the fantasy of a kid at PRP. Mandsford 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to mention the vote taken in Puerto Rico refusing admission into the U.S. at that time? (Can still happen if the referendum is taken up again.) - Texture 21:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's not quite true. In the last referrendum (in 2003), they gave voters three choices - statehood, independence, or keep it like it is. It almost always comes out 1/3 for statehood, 1/3 for indepdence, and 1/3 for keep it like it is. →Raul654 21:40, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

My phrasing was poor - You should add just what you said. - Texture 21:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's usually more like 51% status quo, 47% statehood and maybe 2% independence. Whether it's because of genuine popular sentiment or because of independistas boycotting the referendum (depending on who you talk to), the independence option has never been particularly popular.

However, the political status question is the political issue on the island, with the three major political parties founded on their stance on the issue. As can be seen in Politics of Puerto Rico, the pro-independence party doesn't have a very good showing in the commonwealth government at all. Guppy313 17:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The political status of Puerto Rico was discussed in the United Nations (June-2006). Puerto Rico's self determination is an ongoing debate in the special decolonization committee of the UN since the early 70's. Puerto Rico was taken out of the list of non- self governing countries in 1953 when it was established the Estado Libre Asociado de PR(translation: Puerto Rican Associated Free State; US gov. translation: Commonwealth )(see: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gacol3138.doc.htm ). --vertical 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

---

article should not suggest canada would become one american state. Badanedwa 22:59, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

The phrase is also designed to appeal to Canadians' fears of losing power in such a union. In reality, if Canada did join the United States, each province would most likely be admitted as a state of its own, making Canada the 51st through 60th states. However, the phrase "51st state" clearly carries the subtext that all of Canada would have the power of just one single state.

What about the Territories? SYSS Mouse 19:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Uh, you're asking a fairly detailed question to a purely hypothetical sitaution. That's not exactly easy to respond to. →Raul654 19:08, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Not quite 10 states. It's unlikely that Prince Edward Island would be admitted as a state. Were there to be an annexation of Canada, the Maritime Provinces would probably be merged into a single state. Probably eight states

Similar reasoning would apply to Britain in the hypothetical case of Britain being annexed. Probably Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland would be one state each, while England would be divided into around 10 or so states. In fact, most of the so-called "51st states" would probably be divided up into several states were they to be annexed.

At any rate, these are extremely improbable events.  :-)

The idea that the UK would join the US as 13 states is hilarious. 26 new senators = instant 34% plurality in the Senate! Ha! Four states, maybe. And only if they agree to adopt US spelling. :-) --Tysto 08:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's far more likely that just England becomes the 51st state if/when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland realise that leaving the Union is a viable option, there's a decent chance that the SNP will win the next Scottish Parliament election and call a referendum on independence. Its really a grey area as theres not a great deal of love for either the US or the EU as far as Britain losing some sovereigntyJoevsimp 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I highly doubt the credibility of the poll taken supposedly showing 18 or 19% of Canadians favouring annexation. I personally have never heard of such a poll being taken, and even if it was it could not have been done nation wide, I also doubt that most Canadians polled took it as a serious question. Personally I find it offensive to my nation, I strongly doubt it's accuracy and I ask that it's reference be removed. Let me make something clear, Canadians are proud of our heritage, culture, customs and values, we have absolutely no interest in joining the United States!

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"... obviously you're in the 80%.

---

Someone also put that US Trade Secretary after Free Trade agreement was signed said "Canadians don't know what they have just signed... In 20 years, they will be sucked into our economy." Maybe also relate to how it reflects how Canadian economy is so intergrated with US. Also, Time magazine 1997 had poll that said something around 65% say that joint currency (e.g. Euro) will come to Canada.

---

article should not suggest canada would become one american state. Badanedwa 22:59, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

article shouldnt suggest canada would join the union at all. :)

--58.108.53.110 (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• True, in fact this article takes the subject far too seriously in reference to countries where the term is used only comicly. --86.148.90.20 (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

---

i've never found mention of quebeq leaving canada ad joining america. many newspaper articles merily said they wanted to seed from canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.174.125 (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Israel referred to as the 51st state on more than one occaision in the same vein as the UK. Perhaps this should be mentioned.

I would be interested if any sober British commentators had ever suggested joining the union. Sounds like utter nonsense to me.

Afghanistan and Iraq also, to suggest that they are, and will continue to be, completely under US control. - Cerv

Someone removed the Israel section and I've put it back, after some difficulty figuring out the system. I couldn't find a history of the removal, which seems very curious, but in any case it seems like censorship. I thought the idea behind Wikipedia was to DISCUSS the changes and arrive at consensus. --Guernseykid 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The "humorous refeferences" section states "The UK is the proposed 51st state in the movie of the same name – see The 51st State". I don't see anything in its IMDB entry that supports this. It might have been a brief throwaway joke that doesn't deserve mention in this article. Can anyone who has seen that movie confirm or deny this reference? -- Ponder 15:06, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

It's been a month and no one has spoken up in support of keeping the reference, so I removed it. Feel free to revert if you can confirm the reference in the movie was more than a throwaway joke. -- Ponder 16:23, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

I've seen the movie but unfortunately didn't see your original comment. Yes the 51st State does part partly refer to the UK being the 51st state. It also refers to something to do with drugs (can't remember exactly what), but it is a deliberate double meaning. Samuel L Jackson's character makes several reference to UK being 51st state. Pcb21| Pete 17:37, 25 April 2005 (UTC)

There were discussions between British PM Wilson & President Johnson in 1967 about the UK joining the US after France vetoed Britains second application to the EU http://www.forbes.com/global/1999/0405/0207032a_print.html

Should there really be a disambiguation page for all the meaning of 51 State...I mean, as it stands now the only difference is the capitalization of the "S" User:Dowew May 18th 2005

Other less likely contenders are Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States, the Northern Mariana Islands, which is a commonwealth like Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory. - Are those even possible for statehood? Guam has about 164,000 people, USVI 125,000, Northern Marianas 80,000, and American Samoa 70,000 people. With such small populations, I wouldn't think there was any chance at all of statehood. I've heard proposals to merge the various Pacific possessions with Hawaii, but that's the closest I've seen to a statehood proposal for them Nik42 07:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, D.C. only has around 500,000 :) I'll admit that sentence was a bit of an afterthought, but I was just trying to put in theoretical possibilities. As far as I'm aware, but I could be wrong, the only population threshold for statehood officially made was 60,000 (that's how many Ohio had at statehood). In any case, I'm pretty sure I have seen something about Guamanian statehood (I didn't add that part) and I'm curious as to whether I could find any other obscure statehood movements in the others. I think all four of their populations are probably at least as much as the proposed Jefferson or Lincoln. I'll try to expand it in the next few days, and if not just merge it and make it a small note in one of the other sections. --Dmcdevit·t 07:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

While 60,000 may have been the minimum in the early 19th century, it certainly isn't now. Alaska, for example, had 226,167 people in 1960 (it was admitted 1959) [1]. States in general were much smaller in 1800, so the minimum for statehood was likewise smaller. Nik42 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not that Ohio set a precedent with 60,000, it's that 60,000 was the statutory minimum, and when Ohio reached it, they were permitted to petition to join. Alaska's larger population at the time of their admission didn't change the law. Jeff Worthington 19:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, there are also apparently some people who support U.S. statehood for Guyana.--Pharos 08:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You can find some people who want statehood in lots of places. I've even seen groups from places like Taiwan advocating US statehood. That'd be a fine international situation.  ;-) Nik42 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there were actually serious plans by the U.S. to aquire Taiwan in the late 19th century.--Pharos 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there were any "serious" plans, but I do know that Commodore Perry advocated annexation of Taiwan Nik42 03:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Should the Philippines be mentioned? I've seen the idea tossed about, but I don't know how seriously the idea is taken out there. Guppy313 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the following sentence is completely untrue. Please provide references for it or I will remove it in one week. Thanks

"The same counts for many people in the Netherlands, who also consider their government as puppets of the USA, thus arguing their country should be occupied or incorporated in the USA."

Andries 19:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few:

http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id=824716/contentid=510297/sc=0d8f7a http://debatplaats.vara.nl/forum/listthreads?forum=152618&offsetPosts=0&thread=1024&offset=0 http://www.fnv.nl/abvakabo/renderer.do/menuId/19811/clearState/true/sf/19811/returnPage/19811/itemId/22832/realItemId/22832/pageId/6481/instanceId/19810/

Under Use of "51st State" in Taiwan, someone has noted that "the United States has not officially recognized either the Republic of China or the Republic of Taiwan". Is this true? I thought the United States officially recognized the Republic of China since 1974? Skarredmunkey 03:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Skarredmunkey

The US has officially recognized the People's Republic of China, AKA Mainland China Nik42 03:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

i belive we recognize both. and i read in some books about us supplying arms to republic of china —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.174.125 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As well as accusations of Australia being a 51st state of the USA, there's also banter about New Zealand being Australia's 7th state, or Australia being called the "west island" of New Zealand (NZ has a north and south island). Does this kind of stuff happen with other countries? Andjam 03:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

While it would be logical to have similar phenomena occur here in Austria regarding Germany, we don't have 'em, or rarely do, because of some recent history. Because Austria has been having fewer economic problems lately, however, it's sometimes claimed that "Austrians are the better Germans" (actually the new headline of the German Bild Zeitung some time this summer). ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference is here, Australia was never ever apart of the union, New Zealand was part of NSW until the founding of Federation in 1901. It WAS the 7th colony but at the last minute, they backed out of the negotiations with the commonwealth and stood apart. - 124.176.91.166 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand was an independent colony, and was never part of NSW. Phil Ian Manning (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph where it talks about the poll. As mentioned by someone above, I too dought that it's credible and have never heard of it before, and even if it wasn't, I'd bet a poll that said that 20% of Canadians supported joining the United States would be all over the news. Jareand 06:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone had added it again since. I left it, but added that this poll is hardly reflective of Albertans as a whole due to the somewhat radical nature of the publication which is no longer in print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halogenated (talk • contribs) 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added Israel. It seems pretty obvious that in many people's minds it would be at the top of the list as the country referred to by the term "51st State". Howard M. Sachar deals with the question in his book "A History of Israel", I believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gurnseykid (talk • contribs) }.

This is my first interaction with Wikipedia. It's slightly bizarre that you can edit other people's discussion entries, but c'est la vie!

Gurnseykid

Here's a column by Richard Reeves using the trope. Ellsworth 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear it up, I'm pretty sure in the sense of the UK or Israel, the term 51st state is merely a term to say how "Americanized" they have become or dependent of the USA, not a term for it's possible admission to the Union. Viet|Pham (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I live in Northern Virginia (ie suburbs of Washington, D.C.), which is part of the Eastern part of Virginia, yet I have never heard that "Eastern Virginia" leave the state. What I have heard however, is that Northern Virginia succeed.

This is partially due to the fact that NV is far more liberal then the rest of the state, we tend to be more interested in national news as opposed to state news (becasue we are so close to DC), and thus partcipation can be lax in state politics, and that the taxes sent to Richmond don't equate to the state funds we receive, causing some resentment.

May change the article. Any thoughts?

Zidel333 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

-I am from western Virginia and I don't know why northern virgina is so different from the rest of us, but it is. 76.120.217.110 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

During visits to the US Virgin Islands, I have heard of proposals for the USVI to become a county or counties of Florida (similar, I suppose, to what is mentioned in this article for Samoa and Hawaii). I have no verifiable sources (I literally "heard" it in conversation), so I won't add it, but perhaps someone else has a source.-- MayerG 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually sounds like a workable solution... Source would be good, though. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On the piece about the Ulster American Party, it only a blog article. The party isn't registered with the Electoral Commission as political party, which all parties are required to register. So I feel it should be taken off. 159753 11:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is registered with the Electoral Commission. I feel it fits.

OK. There is no way that 18 to 19 % of all Canadians agree to letting Canada become the 51st state. For one Canada has far to many friends in the world to just let the Americans run us. There are a lot of foreign offices in Canada and, If China has its way, Canada is going to become a huge economic player in the world.

2. If you've ever read a Canadian newspaper other then the National Post you wouldn't believe the kind of anti-American bashing is in it. Like, I look in the political section of the Calgary Sun every morning and there's at least one column telling us how much the Americans suck.

The fact is while we don't do much to distinguish our selves culturally, Canada is A LOT different then the U.S and even if we were annexed, it would be the biggest slaughter for American troops ever cause everyone in Canada would put up arms to get of America.

CANADA KICKS ASS, EH

For every Canadian bullet heading South, five hundred (500) American bullets would be going North YOU JACKASS. We don't want you or need you. Stay where you're at.

The survey in question. It should be noted that the survey was conducted shortly before September 11, 2001. I recall seeing at least one major Canadian media outlet break down the results by province (can't seem to find it now), and (again, at the time), and the most pro-annexation province was Quebec, with ~30% in favor. Guppy313 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not well informed about Canadian politics, because I live in Germany but isn't Quebec the state that wants to be seperated from Canada? When they want to be autonomous, why should they be part of the US? No offense, just a question. --DocBrown 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    ---------------- Yes - (its a province, not a state) 

If it ever happened, Canada wouldn't become one state anyway, but a number of states... AnonMoos 18:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It wont ever happen. Support for an independent union separate from Canada and the usa would most likely have FAR more support. Annexation by the united states would be akin to jumping from the frying pan to the fire in many Canadians minds. Western canada in particular i belive would balk at this - we already contribute vast amounts of resources to a comparably tiny government. Independence over annexation. Imean, what would the Americans be able to give say, Alberta? Our economy is exploding and our health care is better... Find something Albertans could use that American annexation would give and then you can start to think of coming to the table. One more time "Independence over annexation". (like 1 in 5 canadians would actually leave canadian soveringty for the messy gangbang of corruption that is american government.)

One thing that comes to mind is 50% lower taxes... 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Lower than they'd be if Alberta dumps Ottawa without joining Washington? —Tamfang (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the text "[Ireland] is hesitant to become part of a larger European confederation that has different values than Ireland, Britain, and the United States." is POV. In fact, it's an almost complete distortion of the truth. - Walshicus

I concur. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"If Irish unification comes to pass, Protestant and Catholics alike may prefer to be part of a larger nation home to a significant portion of the Irish diaspora and where religious rights are guaranteed to all." This is an insult to the Republic. Religious rights are already fully guaranteed in Ireland!

"Compared to the United Kingdom and Canada, Ireland is the most likely candidate among English-speaking countries to join the union because of these historical and cultural ties." This is subjective opinion, hardly substantiated. It could be equally argued that certain Canadian states are more likely candidates.

I have been bold (in the Wikepedian rather than the Hiberno-English sense) and excised this section entirely. I'm neither a deletionist nor a citation-freak, but it consisted entirely of speculation and uncorroborated, subjective material. Aside from which, it was absolute bollocks from beginning to end.DublinDilettante (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Guyana makes no mathematical sense. It notes that 100,000 people have dual (not "joint") Guyanese and American citizenship. It then notes that "350,000 out of 700,000" Guyanese live in the United States. That makes no sense, since it would mean that half the population of Guyana simultaneously lives in the USA. Since most of the laws of physics have not been broken, then I guess, the author of those sentences meant to say that 350,000 Guyanese live in the USA, out of approximately (350,000 + 700,000 =) 1,050,000 Guyanese worldwide (or between the USA and Guyana, as I am certain there are Guyanese nationals in Barbados, Canada and the United Kingdom). As to why the fact that half as many Guyanese live in the USA as in their own home country is important is beyond me, since it is well known that there are more Irishmen outside Ireland (especially in the USA, Canada and UK) than in Ireland itself. Then there are the Haitians, Jamaicans and Cubans with similar situations.72.27.24.159 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I was a little confused by that as well, I assume that the 350,000 Guyanese in the USA are in fact seperate from the 768,000 (UN, 2005) that live in Guyana. In the Wikipedia Guyana article it says that there are 100,000 Guyanese living in the United States with a source from (http://uscis.gov). So how many is it? The numbers used in the article appear to be either wrong or grossly misleading and more clarity is needed. Benson85 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, this assertion has been bugging me for several months as well, so I went and read the guyanausa website again, and figured out that what it's saying is that there are half as many Guyanans [or whatever] living in the US as there are remaining in Guyana. Even the 1.05M Guyanans is low, because as I read it, only something like 47% of expats live in the US. This would indicate that there are closer to 1.5M Guyanans total. As for the 100k living in the US as given on uscis.gov, again, from GuyanaUSA, it says that 100k Guyanans have US citizenship. As for how notable this "movement" might be, my boss, who immigrated to the US from Guyana as a teenager back in the 1970s, had never heard of such an idea until I mentioned it to him a coupla months ago... It may just be me, but it looks like the requirements for inclusion in this article may be rather low, if there are any requirements at all... Tomer^talk 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that there were plans to invade and annex Sicily after WWII, if the communists had taken control of the island?66.170.83.152 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, After WWII there was a huge movement in Sicily to secede from Italy and join the US as the 49th State. Plans were made that if the Communist party won power in Italy the US would seize Sicily and procede to decide on the statehood issue from there. The Communists didn't win power and the US felt that having a State half a world away surrounded by many potential threats wasn't logical (or logistically possible). If the Communists did win Sicily might very well be the 49th state. Someone should put in a section about this. -DCR

Concerning the plan to annex Sicily and what was plan in case of communist win please see " Operation Gladio".The affirmation "Sicilians do not share every single cultural trait with those in other regions and provinces of the Italian peninsula" is totally exagerathed. On the same basis one could say that the concept of Italian in itself does not exsist(this is what various italian's independentist movement sustain). Corrado —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.172.55 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

During the decay and collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, there was a political party in Bulgaria that wanted Bulgaria to become the 53rd state in the union. I do not think that this party, whose official name I do not recall, had any significant following, nor do I think that they were - oh, how can I put this? - in possession of exact knowledge of the number of states in the union. This information was imparted to me by a Bulgarian penpal at the time. I put this here as an interesting bit of trivia that is not quite appropriate for the article itself Hi There 05:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So would they wait for states 51 and 52 to join before they joined, or what? ;)

EricDerKonig 206.154.229.139 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I've heard that in some parts of the world there is a firm belief (immune to contrary testimony of American visitors) that the total was 50 before Alaska and Hawaii, now 52; perhaps that's reflected here. —Tamfang (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've since read more than one anecdote indicating that such a belief is not unknown among Americans. —Tamfang (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. See e.g., [2] and [3]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I added an {{unsourced}} tag to this. However, I did not delete it because I remember reading about this in the NYT 8-9 years ago. Could someone with online access to the archive look it up? Thanks, JChap2007 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is interesting, and I never knew about the Guyanese movement to become a state. Is there a Belizeian equivalent? After all, it's quite a bit closer to North America than Guyana and is the only other mainland English-speaking nation in the Americas (Canada and Guyana are already covered in the article). A2Kafir 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound well... uh... mean, but as much as I would love to have Canada and the U.K. be a part of the United States, it just sounds improbable. I mean think about it, a World power joining the United states? The U.S. Gained independence from the U.K. and they sign up as a state? Canada is Way to be to be a state, the U.S would need to make many states out of canada. I know there is no rule for how large a state could be, but that would be bigger than all 50 States the U.S.A has now. Puerto Rico makes the most since to me. I would love having countries becoming states, but that would be degrading to the countries. Also the U.S. would be harder to manage for Congress and the President. By yhe way, the U.S would need to print off more money to make a steady market rate. Comments are always welcome I want to know why you agree or disagree with me. The 51 State flag looks Great by the way.Bloddyfriday 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The section about the UK really needs a rewrite. It's almost laughable to be honest. 195.92.168.163 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Think again, mate, millions of men have died for hundreds of years for the independance of our nation, We're hardly going to throw out the Queen and love the American flag, If statehood was enforced on us then there would be a lot of rioting, flag burnings, US troops stationed here would be murdered, Practically no one on this side of the pond likes America (Especially the way some Americans distort history, in particular about the war) Canada is extremely loyal to Britain (hatred for Americans is rife among the Canadians I've met, mostly because of the 1812 invasion) and would object on the strongest possible terms. I personally think America is big enough as it it, And if you tried to take Britain or any country loyal to us we'd kick your ass just like we should have done in 1776 (There's another thing, the rebel's were losing, the only reason we didn't completely crush the resistance was because we were fighting a war with France at the time and thought the war of independance was costing us too much money)-Ted Fox 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.174.22 (talk)

canda's provens would probally be states, and i doubt britant would wanto join.

To the guy who said that Britain would kick America's ass: Who has more nukes and has more money for military funding? :) Britain would get crushed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.34.82.29 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To the Guy above me: Whose economy is owned by China? Certainly not the UK´s. greetings from Germany 84.153.212.182 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC) GermanGuy

How about the Moon as the 51st state? 4.235.120.195 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Green cheese for everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.154.60 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

eh, basically voicing most people's opinons to this:

wtf.

This shouldn't even be considered. Viet|Pham (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, right... that sounds as if you're suggesting the moon should be the 51st state, as opposed to you having any actual credible sources or whatever for a case to be made for it. If that's the case, here is not to do it.
Still, it's rather a not-very-clever suggestion... no nation can claim ownership over the Moon, it's impractical - plus, it has a population of nought. --86.130.16.74 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

Very funny. About as likely as Britain becoming a state Bazonka (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.206 (talk)

I don't see any other country's flag up there!86.142.170.120 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

sounds like a political statement and should be removed. realistically its beyond retarded

This statement wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.211.221 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

i really wouldn't want to see that happen. wed never be able to pull out then... though we are winning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.174.125 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, a lot of it seems to be either a load of bollocks, or highly exaggerated. As stated I mean, there are basically no references in it at all (and that extends to the article as a whole (I'm talking about references as links to the bottom of the page, not URLs throughout the text)). I find it rather odd that the first reference listed in the references section in the whole article is towards the end of this section.
This one reference for this section really is a distinctly poor example. I mean, for a start, for any reference used to back up a suggestion of the UK being withdrawn from the EU and entering a free trade agreement with the US to be credible, it really does need to come from a British source. This clearly doesn't, with words such as colourful and neighbours being spelt incorrectly in American English. Saying "We are still part of the British Empire" - we referring to the US. Oh, and that little phrase, "As an American"...
Furthermore, the section says "some/many British commentators" at least a couple of times, suggesting there should be at least some evidence of these "commentators" in print or on the Internet, meaning references should in theory be extremely easy to come by. But to be honest, I've personally not heard much at all that supports or even suggests that the statements which have been preceded by "some/many British commentators" are in any way true at all. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." While I can understand clearly obvious statements being exempt from this, I personally would consider very few of the statements on this page being "clearly obvious" - and definitely not conflict free, as it may be seen as a challenge to a person's nationality - so they should all have appropriate references. Not that I'd be complaining if "Gordon Brown, the soon-to-be Prime Minister, wishes to withdraw British support for Iraq".
A lot of this probably applies to a lot of the rest of the article too, but, if I'm honest, I really don't care about that. --86.130.16.74 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

I totally agree. Without a reference, the "many comentators" line is an example of Wikipedia:Weasel Words. To me it seems like a political add for Gordon Brown. Added request for citation.David Eagan 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This section needs a re-write, it is based more in fantasy than any sort of political reality. I think it grossly over plays the importance of certian aspects of US life in the UK. For example, even though US shows are popular in the UK, the top 50 shows on tv here are all British. I think alot of the huff and puff can be taken out of this article, or balanced with counter arguments. 62.56.64.220 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole section on other countries is a fantasy world. In almost all the cases it's a tiny political movement that isn't notable or a it's been said as an insult. Nobody in the UK or most of Canada really has any plans to become the 51st State, it's all just statements regarding a precieved loss of culture. As of now this article seems to have missed that point. - MichiganCharms 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough with your whining, all of you. {{Sofixit}} is particularly germane here... 68.187.82.117 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if this was offline, then people I know would simply reply to that with {{sofixyourmum}}...but it's not, so I won't.
So anyway, not including the fact you didn't comment until eight months after the last message in this section, let's look at the template. Second sentence: "When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes". So clearly, the improvement here would have been to remove the entire UK section, and indeed preferably the whole article, given how crap it was at that point, being so poorly sourced, and exaggerative...and just untrue. Sticking to the UK section only, even now it doesn't really belong, as there is no mention of 51st stateness (or whatever you may call it), only two eight-year-old sources of discussion of joining a free trade agreement. Back to the point, the first three edits after 1 June 2007 (though they were not mine), on 4 June at 13:55, were indeed to remove that section, and two others, which were similarly poorly sourced, as I said, like the rest of the article. The next edit, presumably looking only at the fact that the previous three were from an IP (and not the talk page, as was suggested by the IP) and removed "content", was to revert them. Obviously the Wikipedia community does not encourage you to be bold in updating pages, and you should worry a lot about making honest mistakes. Yay for Bearcat, and yay for your point. OK, so I've made a massive generalisation there, which isn't necessarily true, but I could go on, not least including the point about the poor naming of the template, and the anti-assumption of good faith the name seems to suggest.
So instead, how about you stop your whining, and actually look into what you're commenting on, before just saying "{{sofixit}}", and also consider, for someone to improve an article, they actually have to want to, not just find an article full of problems, and think "Oh my, I so have to fix this, because obviously it's my responsibility now". This article does little to make people want to edit it, and who would want to anyway, when its purpose is to suggest that a whole bunch of countries must obviously want to join the USA, except when removing the section they most care about. OK, So you probably won't read this, and if you do, you'll probably read the first line, stop, click edit and scream "OMG, WP:NPA, I'm so gonna get someone to banhammer you for that", and if that's the case: go germane yourself. If not, I'd hope you'll come up with a relevant, more than one-line reply this time, or just leave and forget the whole thing. --86.162.243.157 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Haha "incorrect spelling." Exactly why I hate you brits- you're so pretentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.34.82.29 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but isn't the UK already a republic? To quote republic, "A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on consent of the governed and whose governance is based on popular representation." Isn't this the case in the UK. Isn't it just a monarchy in name only?

-- trlkly 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. Constitutional monarchy. It can look somewhat like a republic if you're not familiar with it, but it very much isn't the same thing. For one thing, Gordon Brown is not the UK's head of state. Bearcat 02:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

trlkly, if your belief were accurate, the Republican Party of Australia (among other anti-monarchist parties in various Commonwealth countries) would be waging a completely irrelevant battle... 68.187.82.117 (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition of the word republic and the description of the mechanisms of government in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc, etc, are not so easy to disentangle and present as binary categories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.174.152 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In many republics, the head of government is not the head of state; India, Italy and Israel come to mind. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember years ago reading a newspaper article by some right-wing commentator who started off reviewing a book about the decendants of survivors from a Crashed 1950's British airliner being rescued and dismayed by the modern Britain they are bought back to. However the article quickly became some massive rant about how Britain should become the 51st state because we'd have the same "say" in the running of the USA as California and would therefore somehow get a massive boost to our economy (notwithstanding that California's economy appears to be screwed). I couldn't beleive what i was reading. 86.142.170.120 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• White Christian always think that Tibet never been a part of China and is parts of U.S.A. 203.218.179.14 10:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  This screams for ^{[citation needed]}! 68.187.82.117 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It has become a commen joke in the western united states to invade and annex mexico in order to stop the illegal Immigration. When the mexican president perposed duel citizen ship for all mexicans, it became a histarical act.

JANUARY 22, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.121.113.25 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? 68.187.82.117 (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Estados Unidos de México y América is a quasi-joke. Wait fifty years, and the name probably will be Estados Unidos de Central y Norteamérica, Les Etats-Unis de Central et Amérique du Nord, and The United States of Central and North America. Three official languages, half a dozen semi-official languages and around 200 states, with 1/13th of the world's population.jonathon (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You just mentioned the North American Union! The debate on whether there's a futuristic superstate consisting of three republics, along with Central America and the Caribbean, Alaska and Hawaii to be formed in the next 40 years (by the year 2050), although there's a small Hispanic/Chicano separatist movement of Aztlan in the Southwestern United States for a new Mexican-dominated country on the news media, and the Puerto Rican Independence Party as well. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Three republics? There's already a superstate consisting of fifty republics. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just added the Original Research tag. While I personally find this article kinda interesting, most of it reads more like a blog post musing about this territory or that country becoming the 51st State rather then an encyclopedia article. This article could be cut in half as it stands with the amount of unsourced opinion it contains. 40k of text and about 25 sections with only 24 references, this should not be. With nearly 1000 edits to this page, I guess it should come without a surprise. Perhaps a complete rewrite is in order. —A 05:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The original part about Israel was as followes:

A number of websites assert or joke that Israel is the 51st state due to the annual

funding and defense support it receives from the United States. Commentator Richard Reeves
 has also used this trope.[1] [2] [3] [4]


The U.S. has strongly supported the recognition and right of the state of Israel, while many

Israelis in case their nation might lose to their Arabic enemies in the Middle East call for

evacuation and relocation of over 5 million Israelis of Jewish origin to a certain section of

the U.S. or another allied nation (i.e. Canada, Australia, southern Africa or South America).

And so my question is: why was it taken off the article?
I sure find it relevant to it, and it is very much well sourced. And in light of this i propose to bring it back. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be more likely that Israel would be offered European Union (EU) membership as part of a peace agreement or as an award for entering into a peace agreement. Plenty of references for this over in the EU wiki.--Infocat13 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As for Canada there was talk in western Canada in the media there that if Quebec left Canada then the western provinces would become independent as a western county or become independent as separate provinces but with a shared currency. Of course, this was in the 1980's when dissolution of Canada looked possible with out Quebec. The French in the 1960’s offered EU membership to Quebec, all of these things would be more possible then statehood in the United States.

I believe there was a poll decades ago that showed a very small percentage of the people of Alberta favoring statehood if Quebec bolted but most Albertans then would have rid themselves of Ottawa instead. All of that oil money all kept at home.

So I agree that this wiki should be kept to only referenced material.

(1)The DC statehood movement. (2) Puerto Rico--Infocat13 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (3)Because Isreal would never joing the US???? Duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.217.110 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just tagged this article with {{articleissues}}, because it's a disgrace. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an accumulation of contradictory speculation.

The first paragraph is quite good:

51st state, in American political discourse, is a phrase that refers to territories considered candidates for addition to the fifty states already part of the Union. Before 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii joined the U.S., the term "the 49th state" was used. Less often, "51st state" refers to countries which are, or are perceived to be, under U.S. control or influence. For example, the 1986 single "Heartland" by The The contains a repeated refrain that "this [the UK] is the 51st state of the USA."

Then we go off into La La land, with unsourced speculation everywhere. There are also flat-out errors. For instance, my fellow Australians do not use the term "51st State", probably because in the extremely unlikely event of us joining the USA we'd become at least 4 states. (When Aussies criticise someone for being too pro-American, we use phrases like "conga line of suck-holes".)

I don't have time (or energy!) to fix this myself, so I'm requesting help in turning this mess into something resembling an encyclopedia article. Thanks in advance, CWC 14:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is rubbish, especially the sections about the use of the term outside the US. *No one* in any of the countries presented, eg, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, the Netherlands(?!) seriously suggests joining the American federation as even a remote possibility. It is more likely that the Moon will be the 51st state than any of those countries. The term is used pretty much exclusively to deride percieved excessive US influence. - signed by an anon IP

An international space treaty in 1967 stated "No country on earth can claim any part of the Moon or celestial bodies in space", with the U.S. and Soviet Union signed in that treaty. The U.S. doesn't see a need to annex land on earth or in space with no ability to support life nor have economic potential to any corporate beneficiary. Same goes to the U.S. government's refusal to recognize land claims in Antarctica, we may have a few scientific personel bases in "Little America" at McMurdo Sound in the Ross Sea, but not declared American soil. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Greenland and Antilles?

tronos 05:46, 10 jun 2008 (UTC)

Greenland has already proposed to be an independent country within the Kingdom of Denmark. And the only region in the Antillies is the US Virgin Islands, which is already in this article. Viet|Pham (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Greenland should be referenced in the article since the United States did attempt to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100,000,000 after WW2 and did occupy Greenland during WW2 to protect it after Denmark fell to the Nazis. Denmark also agreed to the U.S. proposal of creating an airforce base on Greenland. So I don't understand why Greenland shouldn't be considered since people are using a quote from a news reporter about Haiti being the 51st state when the U.S. has no interest of Haiti being a state unlike Greenland where the U.S. had and still does have a geopolitical interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.210.233 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The section "potential candidates" has a subsection called "from current U.S. states." But bullets in that subsection discuss how Maine used to be part of Massachusetts and West Virginia used to be part of Virginia. As all of these states are included in the current 50, none of them is a "potential candidate" for 51st state, so I'm removing those items from the list. PubliusFL (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's appropriate to mention them as precedents, I think. —Tamfang (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But the notion of Great Britain becoming the 51st state of the USA is comical. Not to mention - totally removed from reality. Even the (outdated) "limited discussion on the fringes of political debate" did not imply statehood, merely the joining of some trade agreement. Therefore, the entry will be deleted. Glorm (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring it...this article has nothing to do with speculating that the UK or any country will join, rather a cultural thing aoub how some people view American power. Or something. Smarkflea (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting it again. The entry has nothing to do with the 51st state one way or another - whatsoever, whether a literall annexation, or excessive influence is percieved - it merely mentions an unserious speculation of joining a trade agreement. I'd rather not be turning this into an edit war, if you don't mind. If you want "some people to view American power" - find a source which deals with the UK being the 51st state in any way at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorm (talk • contribs) 08:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Glorm on this one. While there could potentially be a valid subsection of this article discussing the UK, if properly sourced, the mere fact that a few people have suggested that the UK join NAFTA instead of the EU doesn't really cut it. What's needed, and lacking, is documented proof that the specific phrase "51st state" has currency in the UK, not just the idea of the UK joining an international trading bloc. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"The UK has sometimes been called the 51st state due to similarities in language" - ROFL. Could someone please rephrase this part at the very least, so that "showing people American power" would FINALLY cease being an anecdote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorm (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Get over yourself and face the facts: If the US wanted to take over the UK, it would do so with relative ease. No questions asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.34.82.29 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest merging the 2 Dakota's together, giving Alaska to the Canadians, & merging North & Sputh Carolina together (47). Then make Puerto Rico & The U.S Virgin Islands one new state (48) & turn Long Island into another state. Series premiere (remake) (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't for discussing that kind of thing. Viet|Pham (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

True Andy but New England should be 1 state also. --Ceezmad (talk) 20

44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am endeavoring to clean up and organize this article and try to stop some of the arguing and misgivings. It seems some of our foreign friends view this as a militaristic article and are uneasy we may invade their countries. My first step was to try and make the intro clearer as to the dual nature of this article. I have some other ideas, such as including Dominican Republic. Thank you... Smarkflea (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty much done...can we get rid of a lot of those tags at top? I think it's more clear and neutral and stuff. Smarkflea (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Seriously, there's too many tags, now...Smarkflea (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this statement, and I would like to see a reference for such a proposal. A war treaty does not by any means mean Australia wants to become PART of the united states. 210.49.30.22 (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion that the part of the article relating to Oz needs supporting cites. However, I see no assertion in the article to the effect that that Australia wants to become PART of the united states. Absent such an assertion, a call for a citation supporting such an assertion seems misplaced. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, i think that's a very dubious statement too, noone in Australia ever says we're the 51st state as a "sign of affection"! - 124.176.91.166 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahah, you're so conceited, who the hell says that Australia, UK, Canada, Iraq, Mexico, New Zealand and a lot of countries wants to be the 51st state??? OMG, I just can't believe it... AND IT'S WIKIPEDIA, a "reliable source"!!! You should erase RIGHT NOW those stupid false information and only leave the part where talks about Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Other/former U.S. territories...

"Over the last half century, Australian culture was increasingly dominated by the United States of America."

I'm so hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.198.24 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article refers to cultural or economic influence rather than actual US territories. I don't agree that the UK or New Zealand are '51st States', however there must be significant arguement behind it, otherwise it wouldn't appear in the article. This article shows countries "considered to be" 51st states, not those that are. --Baina90 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, the article hasn't really mentioned on the former U.S. territory the Philippines before independence came in 1946, Central America within a "stone's throw" from the mainland U.S. and even France the "oldest U.S. ally" with huge American economic interests, were potential 51st U.S. states in the 19th and 20th centuries. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Chile has often been called the 51st state due to heavy US economic involvement in the country. In many parts of South America it is percieved to be "an economic experiment" by the US, or a form of "neo-imperialism" as opposed to traditionaly installing dictators such as Pinochet. I believe there was a documentary by John Pilger explaining this.--Baina90 (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Recently, Chile is viewed more of becoming a potential member of the European Union along with its' predominantly white-European descendant neighbor Argentina. Many Argentines and a minority of Chileans have a strong cultural bond with Europe: Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Great Britain, etc. and same goes to Uruguay. Maybe the Lome Conference to extend council of Europe observant powers to about 80 former European colonial nations, including Brazil and some Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America may be an inter-national European (er, Global) Union, with Chile an E.U. member instead of the 51st U.S. state. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't {{fact}} tagged this, but I'm wondering. "... The states are guaranteed military and civil defense by the federal government, , [...] ." Where is this guarantee made? I don't see it in the U.S. constitution. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per your link:

Article IV, Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

...Smarkflea (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This article deals with two different topics, areas that conceivably might join the United States as an actual 51st state and countries that are seen as being more or less controlled by the United States. Confusion between these two ideas has led to disputes on this talk page. Perhaps a greater differentiation on the actual page (or even separation into two pages) is needed. Comments? Proposals?Khajidha (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

has there ever been a move ment by the Bahamas and Turks/Cacois to jion is USA as a state? how bout Okinawa after WW2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Bahamas wasn't really interested in U.S. annexation, despite the relatively close distance to Florida (Miami is about 50 miles from the westernmost isle) they became an independent country in 1972. However, the Turks and Caicos opted to join the Dominion of Canada for nearly a century, and the historic link between the two countries is quite stronger with that of the Bahamas & Great Britain.

For Okinawa, the 1951 U.S. treaty of San Francisco gave jurisdiction of the Ryukyu Islands to the Americans as a prize of war against the Japanese. But by the early 1970's, a majority of Okinawans opposed American rule and the U.S. agreed to revert Okinawa back to Japan, which took place in 1972. Another paragraph of the treaty of allowing U.S. armed forces bases and personnel in Okinawa is still in effect, and a large percentage of Okinawans find that unwanted and unpopular with demonstrations and local officials call for a withdrawal of U.S. bases and troops by 2012, but nothing has happened. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that while Polish government remains a highly pro-American, Pro-American sentiments within Polish society, as severeal successive polls are showing, dramatically decreased since the Iraq War and never been such pro-American as in Albania or Romania Darth Kalwejt (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that you sometimes call us 51st state. We joked in communism that we would rather be 51st (state) than 17 (member of USRR). In Poland we joked that in 2003 our country has gained it's 17th region: Iraq voievodship.Boniek1988 (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rumor has it during the Vietnam War in the late 1960's, some U.S. congressmen and military advisers suggested the idea to make South Vietnam into an U.S. state. An editoral of an April 1977 issue of National Geographic magazine mentioned several readers' letters urged that South vietnam become annexed by the US to save the South Vietnamese from the wraths of the communist North. There's not really any evidence of the complot for the U.S. to make South Vietnam into the 51st state, although the country fell to the North in April 1975 and was forcibly annexed by June 1976 to become the present day Communist Republic of Vietnam instead. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems there is a current movement to divide California in two. Anyone want to add this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.54.26 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's always a movement to split California. It's called the San Andreas fault. Thanks for the link; the one in the article is dead. —Tamfang (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Added a couple of paragraphs which give historical perspective on the "51st state" debate in Canada. I cut down seriously on the amount of documentable statements available from newspapers of the time, senators, representatives, high-level members of the United States. Could someone else take a look at the Rush-Bagot and Nashville articles? The second omits its role in helping create the International Joint Commission, while the first misrepresents the reality rather badly. For one thing, its attested goal of disarmament on the Great Lakes has never been met. - http: //www.helium.com/users/416318/show_articles Cameron Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.73 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the article is quite a hodge-podge, coving both serious candidates for US statehood, jokes, derisive comments about close allies of the US (quite odd, since the US generally has no allies, prefering to "go it alone"), and such. I'm not really certain how this should be done, only that it should, but there are several serious possibilites.

• The core article, probably under a different title, would be an overview of current possibilities for US statehood, inclding DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, and splits from existing states. I don't think it needs to cover possibilites from other nations.

• A second article would cover Canada, and other serious considerations from history of other nations which seriously considered this. Leave the jokes/satire/protests on US policy for the next article.

• The jokes, derisive comments, and pop-culture items. Frankly, most of that should not even be in an encyclopedic article as they are not really notable in a historical sense, but those are best dealt with on an individual basis.

• 51st state would probably be best as a DAB page at this point.

All this would entail a lot of work, but it would cot down on the size of the split articles, and separate out the serious content from the jokes, satire, and other fluff. - BilCat (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, however I think it would be better to re-organise the article and delete the un-encyclopaedic joke stuff. I think we should include the following:

• US territories who in theory could achieve statehood and US states which could in the future split into two states.

• Other countries, regions, entities etc in North America

• Rest of the world minus all the bullshit un-encyclopaedic joke stuff that have been included in the article up to now.

I don't think we need to split the article, just re-organise it and cut out the rubbish. What you think? IJA (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the US does have allies such as NATO countries and all the Major non-NATO ally countries. IJA (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• That was a bit of sarcasm, since of course the US has allies, and that doesn;t mean we want them to be US states! As to the rest, that can be done now, but their really should be separate coverage of internal and external "states", since the internal ones are real possibilities requiring "only" an act of Congress to accept admission. The others would be more complicated. - BilCat (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think splitting the article up would be a mistake, since there really is only one topic covered here, and any division would be artifical and detrimental to the reader. I agree that some cleanup is in order, and I'd have no objection to some kind of reorganization which better focuses the material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BilCat. The articles should be named

• Proposals for new American states, just in the vein of Proposals for new Australian states and Proposals for new Canadian provinces and territories
• American Annexation movements of Canada. This already exists
• 51st State, with the initial warning

This page is about the non serious use of the term 51st State. For other uses, see Proposals for new American states and American Annexation movements of Canada.

Esmito (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree With Esmito's suggestion. Proposals for new american states limited to "serious" suggestions, ie suggestions limited to extending statehood to existing US territories as well as split's of existing territories. Allow for some latitude to include some items from List of U.S. state secession proposals. American Annexation movements of Canada exists, move anything valuable in this article into that one. I suspect the rest is just cruft and probably worthy of AfD.--Work permit (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps an article can be constructed on the phrase as a metaphore for closer ties to the US, referencing reliable sources such as this.--Work permit (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with Esmito. Alex9788 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Esmito's suggestion. –Sparkgap (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to clear the backlog of articles requiring splitting. This is now the only articl outstanding from April 2010. It was not obvious where the split should be made. Can someone who does want to split the article be brave and do it, otherwise, can the tag be removed? Op47 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the split tag. The article isn't large enough to split, in my opinion. There are appropriate sub-articles for larger topics (like Puerto Rico or DC statehood). Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

These sections discuss annexation by the US before the US had 50 states. I'm not sure they belong in this article.--Work permit (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about rearranging the article by changing the sections from one based on Geography to ones based on candidates and culture, using the following headlines for the main part:

Possible candidates - Actual parts that could conceivably become the next state [i.e., Puerto Rico]. This would only include US territories, and no mention of foreign lands.

Historical candidates for US statehood - Territories that were considered by the US government, such as Dominican Republic, and territories that a significant amount of US peoples wanted in the Union. This may be best served as a separate article, since the '51st' would be the wrong number; though I'd include it at first 'til another article gets off the ground.

Popular culture - Non serious uses; editorials in the US and foreign countries; books; etc.

Plus legal requirements, etc.

What do you think? Also give your input on the heading titles...ThanksSmarkflea (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All in all a good suggestion. The "possible candidates" would I assume, be "real" candidates today. That section could be labeled "Serious proposals". The "historical canidates for US statehood" chould be labeled just that. The devil is in the detail, how would we cannonically define, for example, significant? The Pop culture a good idea (most of the article including the pop culture section), not sure what to label it. There should be subsections, for example, Annexation movements of Canada with a link to the main article. I think that section could be more "prose" and less "list". As a next step, would you be willing to take a cut at "Historical candidates for US statehood"?--Work permit (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed "From current U.S. states" since these are historical examples and included in List of U.S. state secession proposals, which I moved to "See Also". I moved some material in this former section to that article... --Smarkflea (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved North American Union to See Also; cut out some parts of Canada that should be in "Annexation movements of Canada"; moved Newf. over there... Smarkflea (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved the UK references to the UK section. The wording needs some tidying.--Work permit (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, please remember it's considered poorly to do more than a few edits per day...thanks Smarkflea (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to oblige would like to understand better. The net edit wasn't a radical change. Was the the sheer edit count, or the overall net change that you think I should limit.--Work permit (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To consider the State of Franklin

http://www.johnsonsdepot.com/franklin_sayers.pdf

Disunited States: The Lost State of Franklin and Frontier State Movements at the Dawn of the American Republic

71.198.176.225 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Franklin would've been the 14th or so state...it has nothing to do with "51st State"...Smarkflea (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's split/moved or not (referencing the above conversation to split), the Canada material isn't quite the same as what's on teh "annexationist movements" and "proposals for new provinces and territories" page; the theme of the 51st state in Canadian discourse/mentality it's a bit different than any particular e.g. political party/movement; it's a particular myth/diagnosis, and it's more widespread in media use than the section seems to be aware of. One item that's missing, and I'm not sure where to find it though it was in major dailies at the time, which was during maybe the Meech Lake or Charlottetown debates/votes or the '88 election, was that someone leaked a US state department study that identified only British Columbia and Alberta as worth acquiring if Canada did come apart (presumably Yukon in the bargain, considering the geography, probably also the NWT). They didn't want the rest, was the gist of the report. The state department distanced itself from the report, saying it was only a study and conjecutural, not any kind of agenda; sorry I can't be more specific about the date, or have the article on-hand....it was a bombshell at the time, at least for a day or two....and I suppose was kind of a reminder to people in the other provinces that if they did vote in such a way as to dismember Canada, it's not like they'd have automatic membership in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave....both BC and Alberta in particular are talked about as "51st state" kind of places, because of the heavy interlinks with US culture and economy there, and the Maritimes from time to time are spoken of as a potential 51st state (i.e. as one unit), especially if Quebec splits away and leaves them isolated from Ontario.....but it seems the US State Department isn't interested in them (I'd venture the Pentagon probably would be though....).Skookum1 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think some mention of South Carolina should be made as becoming the first rebellious 'ex' state by being the first state to succeed from the Union, and if this were to happen again, which states would be the most likely candidates. Technically, did it become an independent nation at that point? As well as the states that followed it, until they joined in a common confederacy. I would think so.

Which states would be most likely to do this again, irregardless of it being made Federally illegal (This would not nor did not stop South Carolina or the states that followed it, revolution respecting no law considered invalid or injust, to the revolutionists, or body politic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia under the influence is pointless. Phil Ian Manning (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

to 51st state of the United States because it doesnt mean anything right now and would need the globalise tag.(Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

to Linhass -- 51st state doesn't mean anything either, until it exists it doesn't exist, its like discussing the second moon around the Earth. I.e., it doesn't exit; it may exist in the future, therefore, lets write an article called "Second Moon", where it is proposed in detail all the likely candidates that may become the second moon and why. What next, an article "Next Disney Fairies", where it is discussed what potential names may be chosen for fairies in the next Disney movie. I move that this article be deleted as an adventure in idle speculation. 51st state is no more a term in common usage, than 127th state, 268th state, or 10th state. Do you know the 10th state without looking it up, and yet 10th state is more real than 51st state, which does not exist?

• Support Per Lihaas' reasoning. To the unnamed, unsigned "vote" just prceding, this IS a very common term in CAnada, with various meanings/fears attached to it. It's a theme in CAnadian nationalist politics, in fact, and has a specific meaning here quite different from much of the items elsewhere on the page, which are indeed speculative; This article does need trimming of spurious/speculative material, but there's virtually a literature on this topic in Canada....Skookum1 (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Rush refer to himself as the 51st state at times? I looked through this article expecting to find a reference to that. 24.121.199.17 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all sorry that you wasted your time.—Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(This addition is made in the hope a regular contributor will research the following profound fact, if found to be true, and add it properly. Contribution made by a non-member to Wikipedia.) In the Articles of Confederation that created the original USA, and which were the U.S. constitution until 1787, there is in that document an eternal invitation to the people of Canada, to rise up with their American friends and overthrow the King of England, etc., and to become part of the U.S.A. The new U.S. Constitution of 1787, etc., also recognizes all aspects of the Articles of Confederation which are not contradicted by it; and there is no contradiction of that original invitation in the new constitution - that much I can say is absolutely true. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were expectant at any moment that Canada would soon be part of the new USA. We're still waiting for them to join U.S. Or maybe they changed their minds after we shot at them, etc., and invaded, etc., in the War of 1812. I suppose there were some Canadian English who joined the revolt, but you don't hear that much about that if it happened at all. There was so much real estate taken from royalists in the USA, already. The idea of "annexing" Canada avoids the idea of actually joining as a state under a democratic form of government. Shooting at Puerto Ricans, or someone, would tend to turn them against joining. If we had shot at Vermont, it would never have joined the USA, is my point. If the U.S.A. had shot at Texans, they might have changed their minds and joined Britain instead of the U.S.A. There is no relation between waging war and gaining territory - just go ask Napoleon Bonaparte. What about Haiti, Napoleon? What about Ethiopia, Mussolini? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.234.123 (talk • contribs)

I think The new U.S. Constitution of 1787, etc., also recognizes all aspects of the Articles of Confederation which are not contradicted by it is an overstatement. It recognizes "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution," but says nothing about provisions of the Articles themselves. An offer does not become an engagement until the other party accepts it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if that offer were held to be still binding, the definition of "Canada" could be problematic; I believe in those days it did not include the Maritimes, and certainly not the western provinces. —Tamfang (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.house.gov/fortuno/pdf/PuertoRicoBooklet.pdf
  • In Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico on 2011-03-19 04:41:11, 404 Not Found
  • In 51st state on 2011-06-19 20:04:45, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the article: "Texas could (according to most common interpretations of the Annexation Act) divide into more States without Congressional sanction"

There is no support for this claim, especially the "according to most common interpretations of the Annexation Act" part. That Act does acknowledge that additional states could be created from Texas, within certain limitations, but it in no way allows the ordinary Consitutional requirements to be bypassed, and that includes the requirement that the admission of any new state must be approved by Congress. And even if the Act did make such an extraordinary exemption, the terms of the Consitution take precedence over anything enacted by Congress. The references cited do not support the claim that Congressional approval would not be needed for additional states, nor do any of them in any way support the statement about "most common interpretations."

So I will change the statement, backing off from the exaggerated claims not supported by the references cited, nor by the Annexation Act, nor the US Constitution. The Annexation Act would allow Texas to be divided into multiple states, but the Consititional requirements for admitting states to the Union would still be in effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If the Constitution says "Congress must consent," and an act of Congress consents in advance, what's bypassed? —Tamfang (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

One Congress might consent not to foreclose the option of Texas dividing into several States at some future time but, in my layman's understanding, one Congress cannot act to bind all future Congresses. An argument could be made that such division, in order to become effective, would need consent from the Congress current at the time. Without looking for the details, my recollection is that this issue of congressional authority to bind future congresses is currently relevant in re the status of Puerto Rico and the U.S. citizenship status of Puerto Ricans should that territory choose independence from the U.S. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Laws not passed by the current Congress are enforced every day. Nothing prevents Congress from expressly repealing them. —Tamfang (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's more or less what I said, but with different emphasis. You said that nothing prevents Congress from expressly repealing them, I said that one Congress cannot prevent a future Congress from repealing them.

However, in this particular case regarding legislation which is part of converting the territory into a state, I'll back off of that assertion (I did disclaim that I'm a layman here -- I'm offering only a layman's opinion). Regarding this, the Congressional Research Service has said, admittedly in a report specifically discussing the status of Puerto Rico but possibly more generally applicable than that in this requoted snippet, "It is a general rule that one legislature cannot bind a subsequent one. For example, one Congress may repeal or amend the laws of a previous one, and Congress may pass laws inconsistent with treaties. Thus, one Congress cannot irrevocably legislate with regard to a territory (at least where the legislation is not part of converting the territory into a State) and, therefore, cannot restrict a future Congress from revising a delegation to a territory of powers of selfgovernment." (emphasis added - see p.6 at http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf). The CRS clarified that a bit regarding territories in a later report [4], but that clarification did not mention the situation re states at all. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The parenthesis merely acknowledges – in terms broader than necessary, but harmless – that admission of a State is irrevocable (and thus the sentence would be false without the parenthesis). Did you take it to mean that legislation touching indirectly on such 'conversion' is also irrevocable? The assertion is about legislation on other topics.

To recap: I say, if the Annexation Act does contain the provision that Texas may divide itself five ways and each piece will be admitted as a full member of the Union, the Constitutional procedure is satisfied if Texas does so before Congress repeals such provision (satisfying the principle that no legislature can bind its successors). Do you disagree? —Tamfang (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Democratic Party Platform of 1940, Could be included to this article:

Territories and District of Columbia

We favor a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood, for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. We favor the appointment of residents to office, and equal treatment of the citizens of each of these three territories. We favor the prompt determination and payment of any just claims by Indian and Eskimo citizens of Alaska against the United States.

We also favor the extension of the right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1940.

Democratic Party Platform of 1940

--Seablade (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I disagreee...it's over 70 years old and not valid anymore. Only the latest platforms would be.Smarkflea (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One or two sentences as part of the history. --Seablade (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Republican Party Platform of 1940

Hawaii

Hawaii, sharing the nation's obligations equally with the several States, is entitled to the fullest measure of home rule; and to equality with the several States in the rights of her citizens and in the application of our national laws.

Puerto Rico

Statehood is a logical aspiration of the people of Puerto Rico who were made citizens of the United States by Congress in 1917; legislation affecting Puerto Rico, in so far as feasible, should be in harmony with the realization of that aspiration

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1940

Republican Party Platform of 1940

--Seablade (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Puerto Rico section of this article ends with the sentence, "Currently the project of law was submitted to the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico." What exactly does this mean? The last sentence of Political status of Puerto Rico#2012 Plebiscite Proposal is, "Currently the bill is subject to public hearings in the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico." Does this mean the same thing? If so, could we just replace the former sentence in this article with (something like) the latter? - dcljr (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! --Seablade (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)